George Washington Would Not Be Happy
The South Essex State Senate District (that looked like a salamander in this political cartoon) - Crafted by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry to Help Democratic-Republicans Hold the Seat in 1812
Americans’ approval rating of Congress is just 20 percent. As for gerrymandering, most don’t like that either. In a 2025 poll, 55 percent said that redrawing districts to win seats is “bad for democracy.” Yet the redistricting wars are in full force and partisans of both parties seem to approve when their party is doing it. Retaining or gaining political power seems valued more than what’s good for democracy.
The Constitution and the Federalist Papers clarify what representation entails. In Federalist #10, James Madison said that in our republic elected officials should “refine and enlarge the public views” and “best discern the true interest of their country” and their “patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” To do this, of course, they needed to understand their constituents’ concerns and consider the nation’s long-term needs as well.
A key question at the Constitutional Convention became how to apportion representatives. Madison argued for proportional representation based on population in both the Senate and House. The small states quite naturally objected and the resulting “great compromise” allocated two Senators to each state and a House based on population, with the number of seats adjusted after each decennial census. When the size of the population for a House seat was debated, George Washington, president of the Convention, who rarely spoke did. Rather than the proposal to award one seat for every 40,000 inhabitants, he said that this was too large for a member of Congress to know the views of constituents. He proposed 30,000 and that became the basis for the First Congress.
That number of representatives was adjusted after each census, and the population for each district went up too. By 1910 there were 435 members, each district comprising about 211,000 inhabitants. In the Reapportionment Act of 1929, the 435 number was fixed so that after the 2020 Census each district now comprises about 762,000 people, twenty-five times Washington’s wish.
With gerrymandering and a size of districts that would make Washington gag, the current constitution of Congress presents serious problems for democracy. Gerrymandering places barriers to representation. It facilitates the ability of a member in a “safe” district to ignore those who voted for the other party. It also leaves large swaths of voters effectively unrepresented. As an example, in 2024 California Republicans got 39 percent of all votes for members of the House but only 9 of the State’s 52 seats (17%). In South Carolina, Democrats got 40 percent of the vote but only 1 of 7 House seats (13%). The size of House districts makes it very difficult for a member to know constituent concerns on many issues beyond a superficial level. At the founding, it was assumed that the national government would be concerned principally with foreign affairs, trade and taxes, leaving everything else to the states. Today, a much wider range of concerns confront Congress, making hearing and considering constituent ideas much harder.
There are proposals to deal with these problems because the number (and thus size) of election districts are set by law, not fixed in the Constitution as are two seats per state in the Senate. Two proposals for the House suggest both possibilities and problems.
Uncap the House: This remedy argues for a dramatic expansion of the number of districts which would lower the number of constituents in each. One approach – the Wyoming Rule – would set the average district size equal to the population of that (smallest) state (currently about 588,000), producing a House of 578 members. More dramatic proposals would make districts even smaller. The chief benefits claimed include representatives being closer to their constituents and lowering the cost of campaigns (and thus reducing the power of “big money”). Opponents argue that the House would be harder to manage, cost more and that the last thing we need are more politicians.
Multi-Member (Plural) Districts: This idea (used in some elections for state office) focuses on how members are elected. As an example, a highly populated House district might have 5 members so that if Republicans got 60 percent of the vote they would get 3 of the 5 seats and Democrats the other 2 rather than the “winner take all” in single-member districts. Chief benefits claimed include more accurate representation of all voters in the district. Opponents argue that this would weaken party control and foster third parties.
Both proposals currently struggle for support and face the headwind of the fact that whichever political party benefits most from the current, single-member, gerrymandered district system will resist change (as might as well the party that sees itself becoming the future majority). Neither is there a public clamor for Constitutional amendments banning gerrymandering and establishing campaign finance reform, steps that might lessen the need for other proposals.
What seems missing most of all is a national public demand for change and politicians and citizens who possess the public virtue and moral courage to put country above party. That deficit would also make Washington unhappy.
Photo Credit: wikimedia.org
